RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01526
INDEX CODE: 100, 131
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
1. Promotion reconsideration to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
the Calendar Year 1997C (21 Jul 97) Lieutenant Colonel Board.
2. Addition of a new Training Report (TR), dated 15 Jan 98, to his
military records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board reviewed his military records with
incomplete and possibly misleading information included in the
Education/TR rendered for the period 26 Aug 91 through 31 Jul 92. His
efforts to correct those errors were successful but supplemental
promotion consideration was denied.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
9 Jan 81. He is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of major, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 93.
Applicant’s Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) since 1989 follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
8 Mar 89 Meets Standards
8 Mar 90 Meets Standards
8 Mar 91 Meets Standards
25 Aug 91 Meets Standards
* 31 Jul 92 Education/TR
20 May 93 Meets Standards
20 May 94 Meets Standards
20 May 95 Meets Standards
20 May 96 Meets Standards
20 May 97 Meets Standards
12 Dec 97 Education/TR
No closing date Education/TR, dated 15 Jan 98
14 Apr 98 Meets Standards
* Contested TR.
Applicant has one nonselection for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the CY97C Central Lieutenant Colonel Board and
one nonselection by the CY98B (1 Jun 98) board.
A similar application was submitted under AFI 36-2401, Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) did not find it necessary to correct the report as
the corrections had already been made by Headquarters AFPC/DPPBR3 on
29 Jan 98. As such, DPPPA indicated that, even if the ERAB had found
it necessary to approve the corrections, the request for consideration
by Special Selection Board (SSB) would not have been approved as they
believe the corrections made were minor administrative changes (see
TAB 1).
Prior to the AFI 36-2401 appeal, the contested TR was previously
corrected to reflect a length of course to 49 weeks (Section I,
Item 7) rather than 37 weeks, course title was changed to Master of
Science/Physics versus Master of Art/Physics (Section I, Item 10), and
correction of the third line in Section III to state “...Master
Degree/Physics...” versus “...Master of Art/Physics...”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Acting Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this
application and concurs with the ERAB in that they, too, believe these
corrections are administrative in nature and do not warrant promotion
reconsideration. The applicant, himself, states that the evaluator
would not support his appeal efforts as he believed the error to be a
minor administrative error.
Each officer eligible for promotion consideration is advised of the
entitlement to communicate with the board president. The applicant
could have used this means to inform the board president of the
discrepancies in the contested TR if he believed them to be of such
significance. However, DPPPA has verified that the applicant elected
not to exercise this entitlement.
There is no clear evidence the TR negatively impacted applicant’s
promotion opportunity. Central boards evaluate the entire officer
selection record (OSR) (including the promotion recommendation form
(PRF), OPRs, OERs, TRs, letters of evaluation, decorations, and
officer selection brief (OSB)), assessing whole person factors such as
job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of
experience, leadership, and academic and professional military
education. DPPPA is not convinced the contested TR contributed to the
applicant’s nonselection for promotion. Based on the correction made
to his TR, they do not believe promotion reconsideration is
appropriate.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a two-page
rebuttal indicating, in part, that the new TR is the result of a
change in the way the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) now
processes and reports on degree completion (see Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. While the Air Force
acknowledges that the TR, dated 2 Dec 92, and reviewed by the CY97C
lieutenant colonel selection board, contained three minor errors which
were corrected after the CY97C board convened, it is highly unlikely
these were the sole cause for his nonselection. In this respect, they
note that central boards evaluate the entire officer record. After
reviewing the evidence of record, we are in agreement with the
comments of the Air Force and are compelled to conclude that these
omissions constitute harmless errors. Therefore, we find no basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.
4. With regard to the TR, dated 15 Jan 98, it appears that
applicant is requesting that this report be reviewed by the CY97C
selection board. However, in view of the date of the report, this
request is without merit inasmuch as it was produced well after the
CY97C board convened. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend
favorable action on his request.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 4 March 1999, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 May 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Jun 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 98.
Exhibit E. Letter fr applicant, dated 7 Jul 98.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his AFI 36-2401 application, the AFI 36-2401 Decision, his OPR closing 15 Jun 97, and a statement from his Military Personnel Flight (MPR) (Exhibit A). Although the final evaluator signed the OPR on 27 Jun 97, the fact remains the OPR was not required to be filed in the applicant’s OSR before the selection board convened on 21 Jul 97 (Exhibit C). Despite the fact the 15 Jun 97 OPR was submitted on the correct closeout date, it was the...
As to the 23 June 1997 duty history entry, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, stated that the applicant's letter to the P0597C board president, which explained his then current duty title, was in his Officer Selection Record (0%) when it was considered by the P0597C selection board. The applicant requests two corrections to his duty history. The applicant requests his duty history entry, effective 2 Oct 92, be updated to reflect “Chief, Commodities Section”...
DPPPA stated that both the Education/Training Report (TR) and MSM, 1OLC, were filed in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) and considered by the P0597C central lieutenant colonel selection board. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that it ignores his contention that his pre-board records...
As an alternative, that his record, with the corrected PRF, indicating the proper duty title be directed to meet a Special Selection Board (SSB). On 18 Jun 97, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was convinced by the applicant’s documentation that the duty title needed correction but did not grant promotion reconsideration by the CY96C board since their “authority to grant SSB consideration is restricted to cases in which the evidence clearly warrants promotion...
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of the contested report and supporting statements from the evaluators. DPPPA noted that the letters of support from the rating chain on the contested OER are dated some 15 years after the report became a matter of record. He stated that the statement from his rater is not simply a letter of support, but evidence for appeal - it states the situation, why the OER was marked incorrectly, and his (the rater’s) recommendation for its resolution.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00410 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO SEP 2 9 APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 13 August 1993 and 4 June 1994, be replaced with the reaccomplished reports provided; and, that he be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C (21 Jul 97) Lieutenant Colonel Board (P0597C), with the corrected...
The inconsistencies between the duty titles on his Office Performance Reports (OPRs) and those listed on his Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) prior to his consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0498B central board have been administratively corrected. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory...
His corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board. As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Nov 98.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 June 1998 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by special selection...
Applicant filed an appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, requesting the level of PME be changed from “ISS” (Intermediate Service School) to “SSS” (Senior Service School) and if approved, he be given SSB consideration by the CY97E board. DPPPA is not convinced the board members zeroed in on the level of PME reflected on the OPR in question and used it as the sole cause of applicant’s nonselection. In addition, the applicant included evidence with his...